The Hearings Official addressesthis issueon pages4and 5 ofthe decision ~pages44-45 of the <br />record}.The appellant assertsthe Hearings Official failed to look atthe plain language that <br />required such a meeting. <br />The applicant submitted the initial application within the required 180 day timeframe but later <br />added a concurrent CUP afterof the 180 day timeframefollowingthe neighborhood/applicant <br />meeting. The Hearings Official foundthatthe intent of the meeting isto share information and <br />the proposal did not change from the time of the meeting to submittal of the CUP application, <br />As this issue does not relate to any substantive approval criteria as part of the application <br />approval, and because the neighborhood was provided with the opportunity to review the <br />proposal, share information and identify issues as intended by the neighborhood/applicant <br />meeting requirement, staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirmthe Hearings <br />Official's decision with regard to Northgreen Property Appeal Issue 7. <br />Northgreen Property Appeal Issue S <br />Metro Pian Policies <br />The Hearings Official addresses this issueon pages 5-10 of the decision pages 45-50 of the <br />record}, The appellant asserts that the Hearings Officio! erred in concluding that Metro Plan <br />policies are not independent review standards on which to judge an application. <br />The Hearings Official provides a thorough explanation on the proper use of the Metro Plan and <br />policies, also specifically noting that several of the policies which are relevant are implemented <br />by specificcriteria in the application. <br />Staff findsthatthe Hearings Official properlyapplied relevant Metro Plan policies and correctly <br />concluded that the proposal is consistent with the Metro Plan. As such, staff recommends that <br />the Planning Commission affirm the Hearings Official's decision with regard to Northgreen <br />Property Appeal Issue B. <br />North reen Pro ert A eal Issue 9 <br />Health and Safety - EC 9,83ZO~fi~ <br />The Hearings Official addressesthis issueon pages 20-21 ofthe decision pages fi0-61 of the <br />record}.The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official erred by not considering the health and <br />safety effects of excessive noise, <br />The Hearings Official correctly found that the proposal will not be a significant risk to public <br />health and safety, as compliance with FCC emission requirements were met. While the <br />Hearings official did not specifically address noise as a health and safety issue under the <br />discretionary PUD approval criteria as the appellant suggests is needed, the decision thoroughly <br />addresses the issue of noise impacts in context with other mare specific governing standards <br />and approval criteria for telecommunication facilities, including federal standards, <br />PC Agenda -Page 7 <br />